New gTLD Program
Community Priority Evaluation Report
Report Date: 21 May 2015
Application ID:
Applied-for String:
Applicant Name:

1-1830-1672
SHOP
Commercial Connect LLC

Overall Community Priority Evaluation Summary
Community Priority Evaluation Result
Did Not Prevail
Thank you for your participation in the New gTLD Program. After careful consideration and extensive
review of the information provided in your application, including documents of support, the Community
Priority Evaluation panel determined that the application did not meet the requirements specified in the
Applicant Guidebook. Your application did not prevail in Community Priority Evaluation.
Your application may still resolve string contention through the other methods as described in Module 4 of
the Applicant Guidebook.
Panel Summary
Overall Scoring

5 Point(s)Criteria#1: Community Establishment#2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community#3: Registration Policies#4: Community Endorsement
Total

Earned00325Achievable
4
4
4
4
16

Minimum Required Total Score to Pass 14

Criterion #1: Community Establishment
0/4 Point(s)1-A Delineation
0/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel determined that the community as defined by the application did
not meet the criterion for Delineation as specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria)of the Applicant Guidebook (AGB), as the community defined in the application does not demonstratesufficient delineation, organization, or pre-existence. The application received a score of 0 out of 2 points
under criterion 1-A: Delineation.

Page 1

Delineation
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for delineation: there must be a clear, straightforward
membership definition1 and there must be awareness and recognition of a community (as defined by theapplication) among its members.
The applicant defines its community as follows:
The community for the .SHOP will be for eCommerce Operators - For the purpose of thisapplication we are defining our community as eCommerce operators that directly sell to the generalpublic on the internet. This community is basically a B2C site that utilizes credit card processing
requiring them to abide by PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards) to operate.
The application further delineates its users from the general public with the following:This community is easily identified as websites that have shopping cart programs that utilize SSL(Secured Socket Layer) certificates (required under PCI DSS) to process their transactions. Studies
have been performed to help identify these website operators and we have a 95% confidence that wehave a clear and defined subset of the internet.
According to the AGB, “Delineation relates to the membership of a community, where a clear and straightforward membership definition scores high, while an unclear, dispersed or unbound definition scores low.”
Given the applicant’s restriction of its proposed community to online businesses that require use of SSL
certificates, the Panel has determined that the application provides a clear and straight-forward membershipdefinition and thus meets the first of the AGB’s two criteria for Delineation.
According to the AGB’s second Delineation criterion, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a merecommonality of interest” and there should be “an awareness and recognition of a community among its
members.” The application materials and further research provide no substantive evidence of what the AGB
calls “cohesion” – that is, that the various members of the community as defined by the application are“united or form a whole” (Oxford Dictionaries). The proposed community encompasses a very large andgrowing field of diverse and geographically dispersed online retailers. While the application’s reliance on SSL
certificates delineates a subset of retailers, SSL is simply one of several necessary tools for conducting online
business. Use of SSL, however, is not sufficient to ensure that all entities using it are aware of one another as
a community, and that the proposed community coheres as per the AGB. Furthermore, based on the Panel’s
research, various entities in the proposed community do not show an awareness or recognition of othersegments of the applicant’s proposed community, whether by way of interaction or an explicit statement ofcohesion.2
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application satisfies only one of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for delineation.
Organization
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for organization: there must be at least one entity
mainly dedicated to the community and there must be documented evidence of community activities.
According to the AGB, "organized" implies that there is at least one entity mainly dedicated to thecommunity, with documented evidence of community activities.” Based on information provided in theapplication materials and the Panel’s research, there is no entity that is mainly dedicated to the community
defined in the application.

1 According to the AGB, “an unclear, dispersed, or unbound definition scores low” (ICANN Applicant Guidebook

4.2.3)
2 The Panel acknowledges that an exhaustive review of all proposed community member entities is not possible and has
reviewed a number of representative examples to determine awareness and recognition among proposed community
members.
Page 2

The community as defined in the application is dispersed geographically and across a wide array of businesstypes and activities, including all business entities or organizations that sell to consumers using websites thathave shopping cart programs that utilize SSL certificates to process their transactions. According to theapplication:
Initially, since there was no clear community representation, we worked on establishing some formof a member trade association. The result was the creation of ECWR.net (eCommerce World
Retailers). This was formed in March, 2004 and clearly predates the 2007 requirement in the
Applicant Guidebook.
The applicant acknowledges that the proposed community was not organized, and that it has sought toorganize the proposed community members through ECWR.net, which provides information and resources
to the e-commerce community. The application states that the ECWR has “in excess of 1,000 members
representing a substantial amount of eCommerce,” though evidence of these retailers’ participation or of thegroup’s activity generally is not significant. Additionally, recent estimates put the number of US-based ecommerce retailers at over 102,0003; this figure does not include e-commerce retailers from other major
global markets that the applicant also includes in its proposed community. Therefore, the ECWR is only
dedicated to a subset of the community defined by the application. The applicant states that its members“represent an equilivant [sic] in excess of $866 trillion in annual sales.” However, estimates of the total retailmarket (both online and in-store) for 2014 show total sales of around US$22.5 trillion.4 Another entity towhich the application makes reference, the National Retail Federation5, and a subsidiary organization,
Shop.org, are committed to the retail (including e-commerce) community defined by the applicant, but its
advocacy and policy activities are largely limited to US policy issues.6 Therefore, the Panel has determinedthat there is no entity mainly dedicated to the community in all the breadth and geographic range defined in
the application.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for organization.
Pre-existence
To fulfill the requirements for pre-existence, the community must have been active prior to September 2007
(when the new gTLD policy recommendations were completed) and must display an awareness andrecognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application was not active prior to September 2007. According to section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, the CPE process is conceived to
identify qualified community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue
priority to an application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a obtain a sought-after genericword as a gTLD string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a “community” construed to obtain a sought-aftergeneric word as a gTLD string, and that the application is attempting to organize the entities described in theapplication materials through a gTLD. The proposed community therefore could not have been active prior
to the above date (although many of its constituent parts were active).
The application refers to several organizations that existed prior to 2007, including organizations that haveendorsed its application and others that represent parts of the defined community. However, the fact that
3 See http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikalbelicove/2013/09/18/how-many-u-s-based-online-retail-stores-are-on-the-internet/
4 See “Retail Sales Worldwide Will Top $22 Trillion This Year,” http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Retail-SalesWorldwide-Will-Top-22-Trillion-This-Year/1011765
5 According to its website, the National Retail Federation “is the world’s largest retail trade association, representing
discount and department stores, home goods and specialty stores, Main Street merchants, grocers, wholesalers, chain
restaurants and Internet retailers from the United States and more than 45 countries.”
6 See https://nrf.com/advocacy/policy-agenda; also see https://nrf.com/membership/committees/shoporg-policyadvisory-group;
Page 3

these organizations were active prior to 2007 does not mean that these organizations were active as part ofthe larger community as defined in the application prior to 2007, as required by the AGB.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not fulfill the requirements forpre-existence.
1-B Extension
0/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the community as identified in the application did not meet the criterion for
Extension specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as the application
did not fulfill the requirements for size, nor demonstrate the longevity of the community. The application
received a score of 0 out of 2 points under criterion 1-B: Extension.
Size
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for size: the community must be of considerable size
and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application is of considerable size. According to the application, “We
currently have in excess of 1,000 members representing a substantial amount of eCommerce (these members
represent an equilivant [sic] in excess of $866 trillion in annual sales).”7 The community for .SHOP as definedin the application, therefore, is large both in terms of geographical reach and number of members globally.
However, as previously noted, the community as defined in the application does not show evidence of“cohesion” among its members, as required by the AGB.8 Therefore, it fails the second criterion for Size.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application meets only one of the two criteria
required.
Longevity
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for longevity: the community must demonstrate
longevity and must display an awareness and recognition of a community among its members.
The community as defined in the application does not demonstrate longevity. According to section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, the CPE process is conceived to identify qualified
community-based applications, while preventing both “false positives” (awarding undue priority to an
application that refers to a “community” construed merely to a get a sought-after generic word as a gTLD
string) and “false negatives” (not awarding priority to a qualified community application).
The Panel determined that this application refers to a proposed community construed to obtain a soughtafter generic word as a gTLD. As previously stated, the community as defined in the application does nothave awareness and recognition among its members. Failing this kind of “cohesion,” the community definedby the application does not meet the AGB’s standards for a community. Therefore, as a construed
community, the proposed community cannot meet the AGB's requirements for longevity.
The Panel determined that the community as defined in the application does not satisfy either of the two
conditions to fulfill the requirements for longevity.
Criterion #2: Nexus between Proposed String and Community
0/4 Point(s)2-A Nexus
0/3 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Nexus as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The string does not identify or match the name of thecommunity as defined in the application, nor is it a well-known short-form or abbreviation of thecommunity. The application received a score of 0 out of 3 points under criterion 2-A: Nexus.

7 See footnote 4, regarding the implicit errors here; nevertheless, the size of the community as defined is substantial.
8As stated previously, according to the AGB, “community” implies “more of cohesion than a mere commonality ofinterest…There should be: (a) an awareness and recognition of a community among its members…” Failing suchqualities, the AGB’s requirements for community establishment are not met.
Page 4

To receive the maximum score for Nexus, the applied-for string must match the name of the community or
be a well-known short-form or abbreviation of the community name. To receive a partial score for Nexus (of2 out of 3 points; 1 point is not possible), the applied-for string must identify the community. “Identify
means that the applied-for string should closely describe the community or the community members,
without over-reaching substantially beyond the community.”
The application for .SHOP defines the community as “eCommerce operators that directly sell to the generalpublic on the internet.” According to the application documentation, “.SHOP matches the name of thecommunity and is well known in many languages” and “.SHOP has no other significant meaning thaneCommerce.” Elsewhere in its application, however, the applicant states a more commonly understooddefinition for the string: “.Shop is globally recognized and exists in excess of twenty different languages allwith the same meaning: a building or room stocked with merchandise for sale: a store.”
The applied-for string does not match the name of the community as defined in the application. According to
the AGB, a string is a “match” if it is “the established name by which the community is commonly known byothers” – i.e., that the applied-for string is the same as the one name that is most commonly understood torefer to the community. However, in addition to making reference to the “SHOP” community in its
application, the applicant also refers to its commitment to the “e-commerce community” in its mission
statement and uses “e-commerce” throughout its application to refer to the community defined in theapplication. It is evident, therefore, that “SHOP” is not the established name as required for a string to beconsidered a match and that it does not meet the AGB requirements for a full score.
The applied-for string does not identify the defined community, as the AGB requires for a partial score. The
string .SHOP over-reaches substantially beyond the applicant’s proposed community. This is because thestring .SHOP identifies both online (i.e. e-commerce) as well as brick-and-mortar entities9 that sell goods andservices. The latter represent a significant portion of overall global retail10 sales, but are not included in theapplicant’s proposed community, which is “eCommerce operators that directly sell to the general public on
the internet” only and not brick-and-mortar stores. Indeed, in 2014 an estimated 94.1% of global retail sales
were accounted for by brick-and-mortar establishments.11 Thus the string significantly overreaches beyond
the proposed community.
The Panel determined that the applied-for string does not match or identify the community or thecommunity members as defined in the application. It therefore does not meet the requirements for Nexus.
2-B Uniqueness
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Uniqueness as specified in section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus.
The application received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 2-B: Uniqueness.
To fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness, the string must have no other significant meaning beyond
identifying the community described in the application and it must also score a 2 or a 3 on Nexus. The string
as defined in the application does not demonstrate uniqueness as the string does not score a 2 or a 3 on
Nexus and is therefore ineligible for a score of 1 for Uniqueness. This is based on the Panel’s determinationthat the applied-for string “.SHOP” does not identify the community defined by the application according to
AGB standards. Therefore, since the string does not identify the community, it cannot be said to “have noother significant meaning beyond identifying the community” (emphasis added, AGB). The Panel determined thatthe applied-for string does not satisfy the condition to fulfill the requirements for Uniqueness.

9 The applicant itself notes that “.Shop is globally recognized and exists in excess of twenty different languages all withthe same meaning: a building or room stocked with merchandise for sale…”
10 The Panel acknowledges that the word “shop” may also identify establishments outside of the retail industry.
11 http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Retail-Sales-Worldwide-Will-Top-22-Trillion-This-Year/1011765
Page 5

Criterion #3: Registration Policies
3/4 Point(s)3-A Eligibility
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application meets the criterion for Eligibility as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as eligibility is restricted to community members. The
application received a maximum score of 1 point under criterion 3-A: Eligibility.
To fulfill the requirements for Eligibility, the registration policies must restrict the eligibility of prospective
registrants to community members. According to the application:
The .SHOP domain name is intended for eCommerce purposes. This means that a website using.SHOP must have eCommerce-enabled ability to provide a direct conduit to making transaction on
the web. In other words, it is expected that a .SHOP website will have items or services available forsale on that site and that there is an easy path to purchasing these items. These transaction [sic] mustalso use secure communications when processing said transactions.
The application therefore demonstrates adherence to the AGB’s requirement by restricting domain
registration to individuals who are members of the community defined by the application. The Paneldetermined that the application satisfies the condition to fulfill the requirements for Eligibility.
3-B Name Selection
0/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application did not meet the criterion for Name Selection as specified in
section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook, as name selection rules
are not consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD. The application
received a score of 0 out of 1 point under criterion 3-B: Name Selection.
According to the application:
In order for an applicant to be considered “qualified” to purchase a .SHOP top-level domain name,they must go through a strict verification process where Commercial Connect researches the identityof that applicant and his business using semi-automated process patent pending processes. Once theregistrant is “verified,” they are assigned a contact ID which will, then, allow them to register a.SHOP domain name. …
The minimum character length for a domain name is one character, excluding the .SHOP extension.
The maximum character length for a domain name is 63 characters excluding the extension. A
domain name must not begin with a dash ʺ-ʺ or dot “.” and must not begin with the following
sequence: “alphanumeric_alphanumeric_dash (“-“)_dash (“-”)”.
Each character in the domain name, excluding the dots (“.”)s must be a letter, digit, or dash (“-”).
The last character must be a digit or letter. It cannot be a dash (“-”).
The application does not directly refer to its community-based purpose in discussion of name selection rules,
nor are they implicitly based on the community-based purpose of the applied for TLD, which is to “aid in
the the [sic] development of a safer, cheaper, and more secure platform for eCommerce, providing for abetter online shopping experience.” Furthermore, the above mentioned technical requirements are the sameas the minimum requirements for any second level domain in a gTLD, Therefore, the Panel determined thatthe application did not satisfy the condition to fulfill the requirements for Name Selection.
3-C Content and Use
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application meets the criterion for Content and Use as specified in section
4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria). The application provides evidence that the content and use
rules included are consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for TLD. The
application therefore received a score of 1 point under criterion 3-C: Content and Use.
To fulfill the requirements for Content and Use, the registration policies for content and use must be
consistent with the articulated community-based purpose of the applied-for gTLD. According to theapplication:
Page 6

Requirements for the applicant initially will be an agreement that the website will be offering goods
and⁄or services under a secured socket layer (SSL) trusted connection. [...] There may be additional
circumstances whereby it will not be required for the registrant of a .SHOP domain name have afunctioning eCommerce site. [...] Generic .SHOP domain names should be eCommerce site-enabled
and not forwarded to other sites. [...] property.
The application therefore demonstrates adherence to the AGB’s requirement of content and use rules thatare consistent with the application’s community-based purpose, which is to “aid in the the [sic] developmentof a safer, cheaper, and more secure platform for eCommerce, providing for a better online shopping
experience.”
3-D Enforcement
1/1 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application meets the criterion for Enforcement as specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB. The application provides specific enforcement
measures and outlines a coherent and appropriate appeals mechanisms. The application received a score of 1
point under criterion 3-D: Enforcement.
Two conditions must be met to fulfill the requirements for Enforcement: the registration policies must
include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set, and there must be appropriate appeals
mechanisms. According to the application:
Commercial Connect, LLC may, in its sole discretion, suspend or terminate a user’s service forviolation of any of the requirements or provisions of the United States government on receipt of acomplaint if Commercial Connect LLC believes suspension or termination is necessary to comply
with the law, protect the public interest, prevent unlawful activity or protect the health, safety, or
privacy of an individual.
If immediate action is not required, Commercial Connect, LLC will work with registrants and acomplainant to remedy violations. [...] Disputes arising under or in connection with this Agreement,
including requests for specific performance shall be resolved through binding arbitration conducted
as provided in this Section pursuant to the rules of the International Court of Arbitration of theInternational Chamber of Commerce (ʺICCʺ). [...] Mechanisms will be in place for the notificaton[sic] and eventual suspension of domain regsitrants [sic] that either do not qualify to operate a .SHOP
TLD or are operating it inconsistently with its intended use. Two Warning [sic] will be sent and an
appeal process will be available before action is taken to suspend a .SHOP TLD.
The applicant outlined policies that include specific enforcement measures constituting a coherent set. The
applicant outlines a comprehensive list of investigation procedures, and circumstances in which the registry isentitled to suspend domain names and refers to an appeals process available to registrants. The Paneldetermined that the application satisfies both of the two conditions to fulfill the requirements for
Enforcement and therefore scores 1 point.
Criterion #4: Community Endorsement
2/4 Point(s)Support for or opposition to a CPE gTLD application may come by way of an application comment on
ICANN’s website, attachment to the application, or by correspondence with ICANN. The Panel reviews
these comments and documents and as applicable attempts to verify them as per the guidelines published on
the ICANN CPE website. Further details and procedures regarding the review and verification process may
be found at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/cpe. The table below summarizes the review andverification of all support for and opposition to the Commercial Connect LLC application for the string.SHOP.

Page 7

Summary of Review & Verification of Support/Opposition Materials
Total Received andReviewed

Total Valid for
Verification

Verification
Attempted

Successfully
Verified

Application
Comments

7

2

2

1

Attachments to
20(f)

17

3

3

2

Correspondence

612

3

3

2

Grand Total

30

8

8

5

4-A Support
1/2 Point(s)The Panel determined that the application partially met the criterion for Support specified in section 4.2.3(Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the AGB, as there was documented support from at least one
group with relevance. The application received a score of 1 out of 2 points under criterion 4-A: Support.
To receive the maximum score for Support, the applicant is, or must have documented support from therecognized community institution(s)/member organization(s), or has otherwise documented authority torepresent the community. “Recognized” means that the institution(s)/organization(s), through membershipor otherwise, are clearly recognized by the community members as representative of the community as awhole. To receive a partial score for Support, the applicant must have documented support from at least one
group with relevance. “Relevance” refers to the communities explicitly and implicitly addressed by theapplication.
The Panel determined that the applicant was not the recognized community institution(s)/member
organization(s), nor did it have documented authority to represent the community, or documented support
from the recognized community institution(s)/member organization(s). A recognized community institution
or member organization is one which not only (1) represents the entirety of the community as defined by theapplication (in all its breadth of categories as described in Delineation), but is also (2) recognized by the samecommunity as its representative. No such organization among the applicant’s supporters demonstrates thekind of structure required to be a “recognized” organization, as per AGB guidelines, and the Panel has
determined that no such organization exists. However, the applicant possesses documented support from atleast one group with relevance and this documentation contained a description of the process and rationale
used in arriving at the expression of support, as required by the AGB. The Community Priority Evaluation
Panel determined that the applicant partially satisfies the requirements for Support.
4-B Opposition
1/2 Point(s)The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that the application partially met the criterion for
Opposition specified in section 4.2.3 (Community Priority Evaluation Criteria) of the Applicant Guidebook,as the application received relevant opposition from one source. The application received a score of 1 out of
2 points under criterion 4-B: Opposition.
To receive the maximum score for Opposition, the application must not have received any opposition of
relevance. To receive a partial score for Opposition, the application must have received opposition from, at
most, one relevant group of non-negligible size.
The Community Priority Evaluation panel has determined that there is relevant opposition to the applicationfrom a group of non-negligible size, from an entity within the community explicitly addressed by the
12 Five pieces of correspondence were received by 4/17/15, one of which included two letters.

Page 8

application. The entity is a multinational company. The grounds for the objection do not fall under any of
those excluded by the AGB (such as spurious or unsubstantiated claims), but rather relate to the applicant’s
right to regulate a namespace in which the opponent has a place. Therefore, the Panel has determined thatthe applicant partially satisfied the requirements for Opposition.
Disclaimer: Please note that these Community Priority Evaluation results do not necessarily determine thefinal result of the application. In limited cases the results might be subject to change. These results do notconstitute a waiver or amendment of any provision of the AGB or the Registry Agreement. For updated
application status and complete details on the program, please refer to the AGB and the ICANN New
gTLDs microsite at <newgtlds.icann.org>.

Page 9